Huber v. East 149th Parking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huber v. East 149th Parking Corp.

266 A.D.2d 43, 698 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 43 (Huber v. East 149th Parking Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huber v. East 149th Parking Corp., 266 A.D.2d 43, 698 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about August 10, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion and cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs evidence that she slipped and fell on an oil puddle in a parking garage, which puddle she had not noticed prior to her fall although she had noticed other oil puddles at other areas of the garage, was insufficient to avoid summary judgment in favor of defendants. The record established that defendants did not have a sufficient opportunity, with the exercise of reasonable care, to remedy the situation (Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688, affd 88 NY2d 955; Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670). In view of the unrefuted evidence that the City was an out-of-possession owner, summary judgment in favor of the City is also appropriate on that basis. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about August 10, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion and cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs evidence that she slipped and fell on an oil puddle in a parking garage, which puddle she had not noticed prior to her fall although she had noticed other oil puddles at other areas of the garage, was insufficient to avoid summary judgment in favor of defendants. The record established that defendants did not have a sufficient opportunity, with the exercise of reasonable care, to remedy the situation (Mercer v City of New York, 223 AD2d 688, affd 88 NY2d 955; Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 99 AD2d 246, affd 64 NY2d 670). In view of the unrefuted evidence that the City was an out-of-possession owner, summary judgment in favor of the City is also appropriate on that basis. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 43, 698 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-east-149th-parking-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack